Join 3,521 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

"Poisoning the well"
March 9, 2006 12:31 PM   Subscribe

Poisoning the well by our favorite deity. It must be hard to swim against such a current. Self policing doesn't.
posted by Balisong to Etiquette/Policy at 12:31 PM (142 comments total)

Plenty of people make the same complaint in political posts, and don't get their own MeTa thread. Flag it as noise and/or a derail.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:38 PM on March 9, 2006


Flag it as noise and/or a derail.

Or we could write our congressman, that seems to do just about as much good.
posted by Balisong at 12:41 PM on March 9, 2006


I've flagged plenty of similar comments as noise, and they are often deleted.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:41 PM on March 9, 2006


I'm bored. Let's see...18...19...20...21? Yeah, 21 of the current 26 comments appear to be by, about, or to dios and/or the wording of the post. Neat.
posted by Gator at 12:43 PM on March 9, 2006


Gosh, if he doesn't like it, he should skip it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:45 PM on March 9, 2006


I especially like this mature and well tought out attempt to moderate the discussion back to the original post.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:46 PM on March 9, 2006


*though
posted by eyeballkid at 12:47 PM on March 9, 2006


*thought

Stupid martinis.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:47 PM on March 9, 2006


See, here I thought MeTa was broken today or something. It's been so very quiet.
posted by LinnTate at 12:48 PM on March 9, 2006


dios gets nitpicky, and the people who deal with him daily in the political threads pile on over essentially nothing. Molehills throughout the Galactic Empire spontaneously transform into mountains, and nobody with an ounce of perspective manages to give a shit.
posted by Ryvar at 12:49 PM on March 9, 2006


"Plenty of people make the same complaint in political posts, and don't get their own MeTa thread. Flag it as noise and/or a derail."

Right. Not to mention that although I'm sure we're all against torture, the post was an advocacy post with a strong editorial content. I like digaman, I've liked many of his posts. But I can read the goddam news myself (I do) and get the anti-Bush admin rhetoric and sarcasm elsewhere (I do and I enjoy it).

If "poisoning the well" is "criticizing the style of a post" and "poisoning the well" is assumed to be a malicious attempt to obstruct discussion, then there's a whole lot of people here who are maliciously attempting to obstruct discussion.

If dios had posted something with a similar slant, though right-wing, there'd have been immediate complaints about the editorializing, with references to the many times it's been agreed that if one must editorialize, then one should do it in a following comment, and almost certainly complaints about the post in general.

I simply cannot understand why people don't see that dios is being held to a higher standard than most of the rest of us. Anything he does that could even remotely be validly complained against results in a MeTa callout.

Yes, it's agreed that critiques of a post don't really belong in the thread. But, no, it's not the case that whenever it happens, there's a MeTa post about it. And if you're going to assume bad faith on dios's part because he complained, then why don't you assume bad faith on everyone else's in-thread complaints...or even your own?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:52 PM on March 9, 2006


Just don't respond to him, that's my motto. He's like some crazed Christian martyr who runs into a room, babbles in tongues, passes out whips, and ties himself to a post. Why do we all immediately leap in and start whipping?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:54 PM on March 9, 2006


I admit my bad faith. I don't like Dios. I wish he was in some Iraqi prison right now, tasting the same crap he helps feed the rest of us. But until then, I'll feel content to rubbing his nose in every puddle he makes on the floor.
posted by Balisong at 12:57 PM on March 9, 2006


I agree with dios about the editorializing, though he probably should have brought his complaint here instead of in the thread.

Besides, I thought Jess and Matt were cracking down on axegrindfilter?
posted by timeistight at 1:03 PM on March 9, 2006


People do this shit all of the time, Balisong admits he called dios out in bad faith, and history shows us how these sort of Meta posts never turn out well. Grow up, Balisong. This sort of pathetic, personal vendetta is embarassing.
posted by Falconetti at 1:03 PM on March 9, 2006


WHAT
THE
PAN
CAKE!?
posted by loquacious at 1:05 PM on March 9, 2006


sigh, my dream of a MeTa post free day is dashed again, 14 1/2 hours into the day.
posted by edgeways at 1:05 PM on March 9, 2006


dios is doing a good job of being the Cindy Sheehan (his version) of Metafilter once again. I wonder what personal tragedy occured in his life that has lead him to become an opportunist, crying foul, foul, foul, oh ye members of Metafilter while breaking the guidelines himself by not taking it to Metatalk?
posted by juiceCake at 1:06 PM on March 9, 2006


I agree with timeistight and others. In this recent MeTa, everyone piled on for editorializing, "axegrindfilter". While digaman's post was much, much better than Billy's, it still fits the bill. Straw men like, I happen to be against torture, Dios. Feel free to mount the legal argument in favor of it. I have no apologies. don't help.

Either way, though, it doesn't merit this callout. Unless we're starting AxeGrindTalk?
posted by SuperNova at 1:07 PM on March 9, 2006


"I don't like Dios." ... "I'll feel content to rubbing his nose in every puddle he makes on the floor."

Please fuck off. Please? Just go away. Don't come back. Please? If I give you a dollar?

I don't like him either. But he happens to be an intelligent and engaging voice here. He's also caustic and galling. If it's such a bother for you to allow the presence of people who say things you hate, then please fuck off. I think Dios is a wildly disingenuous assclown. Good for him. I think he's a lying hypocrite. Good for him.

Balisong - Please get over yourself, or fuck off. If we made the site unwelcome to everyone you didn't like we'd have a really crappy website.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:10 PM on March 9, 2006


AxeGrindTalk

That site is currently in use for a dicussion group made up of lumberjacks with blunt tree-cutting implements. Sorry.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:11 PM on March 9, 2006


So this is a callout of callout? My head hurts.
posted by JeffK at 1:11 PM on March 9, 2006


But he happens to be an intelligent and engaging voice here.

Woah! You must be desperate.
posted by gsb at 1:15 PM on March 9, 2006


"Woah! You must be desperate."

Desperate for what exactly? And are you going to argue that Dios is stupid, or that he fails to ever stimulate conversation? Please. I'm asking.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:19 PM on March 9, 2006


I wish he was in some Iraqi prison right now, tasting the same crap he helps feed the rest of us.

dios mio, that's nasty.
posted by kosem at 1:20 PM on March 9, 2006


Jesus Christ do you guys ever get tired of having this exact same discussion over and over again? I would make every word in the last sentence a link to an exact replica of this thread, but I just don't have the energy.
posted by ND¢ at 1:21 PM on March 9, 2006


this is a crappy callout. this callout only happened because it's dios. as far as in-thread post criticism goes, that was polite and tame compared to some. I don't agree with dios, because every post expresses SOME opinion, and that was hardly excessive. but that doesn't mean he can't say when he dislikes a post, provided he does so without being an ass about it.
posted by shmegegge at 1:26 PM on March 9, 2006


Does Balisong exist on MeFi just to rag on dios? I know by quickly looking at his comment history that that's not the case, but, damn, it sure feels like it sometimes.
posted by mullacc at 1:33 PM on March 9, 2006


digaman, the strike tags were right that dios put in the thread. This is what happens so just don't be sarcastic/editorialize. It's easy. We know you have outrage. But you don't have to slime up a post with caustic accoutrements. Let US come to our own conclusions.
dios, you should have just started a MeTa thread.
posted by peacay at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2006


I still think pissing on somebody else's thread IN THE FIRST POST is bad form and should be discouraged.
posted by empath at 1:43 PM on March 9, 2006


Empath, why is it more appropriate to wait five or ten responses? Does it really make a difference when you call someone's post shitty at post #1 or post #10?
posted by Pontius Pilate at 1:44 PM on March 9, 2006


Does dios exist solely to rag on MeFi? Who gives a shit? More or less, I just hate his attitude. It's very arrogant, condescending and self serving. Usually this is employed in conjunction with commentary telling us how we should act and what we should be talking about, and it's absolutely infuriating. I'd rather not participate if his comments are not only accepted as honest and constructive, but excused based on some supposed character assassination fascination everyone has over him. He does a good enough job being a dick on his own, as evidenced by his inability to follow the standards he holds us all up to.
posted by prostyle at 1:46 PM on March 9, 2006


GLAG: google-links axe-grinder, one step beyond linking to wikipedia.
posted by mischief at 1:56 PM on March 9, 2006


Besides, I thought Jess and Matt were cracking down on axegrindfilter?

We are, or we're trying to. This was posted two hours ago and I've been teaching some nice senior citizens how to use their new laptop. I basically think almost all "america sucks more every day" political posts and LOL XIANS posts suck, so I try to let the flag queue dictate what needs to go and this thread wasn't on the radar there a few hours ago.

peacay said what I would have said: dios should have started a meta thread but that doesn't mean he's any worse than the rest of the chuckleheads in that thread and elsewhere. digaman could have pre-empted all of this and posted a thread with the same links but a little less ascerbic bs and a less snarky title.

It's my Mom's birthday. I pulled the "this is going well" and "pass the popcorn" comments, left the rest, let's see if it improves over the next few hours after my Word for Beginners class is over.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:08 PM on March 9, 2006


he's been hijacking tons of threads, and it does poison the discussion, especially when it's the first few comments. He really didn't want to talk -- or for us to talk -- about our immoral and illegal torture and imprisonment of people, so did his thing, derailing the post and acting as Mefi cop. good job, dios!--not.
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on March 9, 2006


Sweet Christ, we're doing the dios thing again?
posted by brain_drain at 2:14 PM on March 9, 2006


Empath, why is it more appropriate to wait five or ten responses? Does it really make a difference when you call someone's post shitty at post #1 or post #10?

Actually, I think it does... in threads like this, when I'm disinclined to read them in the first place, I will read the first couple responses to gauge the tenor of the conversation. If the first one in is a bickering little shit one like the one Dios posted here, I'm far more likely to press the back button and move on. And that means the terrorists (and Dios) win.
posted by crunchland at 2:17 PM on March 9, 2006


More or less, I just hate his attitude. It's very arrogant, condescending and self serving. Usually this is employed in conjunction with commentary telling us how we should act and what we should be talking about, and it's absolutely infuriating. I'd rather not participate if his comments are not only accepted as honest and constructive, but excused based on some supposed character assassination fascination everyone has over him. He does a good enough job being a dick on his own, as evidenced by his inability to follow the standards he holds us all up to.

Which is exactly how I feel about 30% of ya'll.

He really didn't want to talk -- or for us to talk -- about our immoral and illegal torture and imprisonment of people...


Then why not just make a post on the sidebar or something that says, "Do you hate torture? Then run your mouth for days about it here." CLICK!
posted by Witty at 2:24 PM on March 9, 2006


I will read the first couple responses to gauge the tenor of the conversation.

And I do the same thing by reading the FPP itself. When I read a post like the one in question (which certainly isn't the worst example), I pretty much know what to expect... and you should too.
posted by Witty at 2:26 PM on March 9, 2006


What EB said (but shorter). The post was the shits, the kind of newsfilter+smarmy editorializing that generates nothing but bile. It was trolling, like most of these posts. (Which is a shame, because Digaman has made some fantastic non-political posts). And more than trolling, it was the kind of post that sometimes get deleted. Politics poisons the well here.

That said, Dios should have flagged it and moved on.
posted by LarryC at 2:32 PM on March 9, 2006


People really have some mistaken impression that their perceived judgment of the quality of a post determines whether the responses in it matter or not, and whether it's ok to shit in it or not--it's not so. MeTa exists for this very reason, and so does flagging.

Stop shitting in posts because you don't like them or don't think they're worthy--it's always the wrong thing to do. Take it here or flag it and move on.
posted by amberglow at 2:41 PM on March 9, 2006


I pulled the "this is going well" and "pass the popcorn" comments

yes, yes. the best response to members pissing in the well is always for a moderator to take a big dump in it.
posted by quonsar at 3:00 PM on March 9, 2006


Jesus Christ people, download the greasemonkey killfile and be done with it.
posted by stet at 3:02 PM on March 9, 2006


Since you asked y6y6y6; I don't think dios is stupid or that he fails to stimulate conversation. I do think he's very successful at being the center of so many things Meta, and that your declaration that he's an "intelligent and engaging voice here" is a sign of desperation. The tenor and actions elicited by the "intelligent and engaging voice" is desperate. Any actions to placate people who either hate/loathe or like him are desperate. In fact, after all this bother and stupidity, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm not very happy about this -- you've infected me with your sick sick sick desperation.
posted by gsb at 3:07 PM on March 9, 2006


As if quonsar is even remotely aquainted with restraint in his actions.
posted by crunchland at 3:08 PM on March 9, 2006


cracking down on axegrindfilter
posted by jessamyn at 2:08 PM

Then you're needed in aisle 49891.
posted by boo_radley at 3:10 PM on March 9, 2006


Balisong writes "I wish he was in some Iraqi prison right now, tasting the same crap he helps feed the rest of us. But until then,"

Jesus Christ man, what the fuck kind of comment is that? About someone who has pissed you off by disagreeing with you on a website? And I thought his comment was shitty and should have been flagged.
posted by OmieWise at 3:15 PM on March 9, 2006


I think someday I might be able to really understand how strong the imperative is to attribute bad faith to those with whom one disagrees. If we were to believe every accusation of bad-faith or trollery that's been made on metafilter, it'd be a wonder if we could believe anyone here means anything they say, ever.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:20 PM on March 9, 2006


quonsar, what's with the hate on jessamyn campaign? 10,000 posts and a few get axed. So what? Is it just the idea of anything that smacks of editorial control on a humungous message board that rags you out? You think total anarchy will create some sort of elephantine utopia?
cue: jpeg
posted by peacay at 3:22 PM on March 9, 2006


What a stupid callout. And what a revealing, and nauseating, comment.
posted by languagehat at 3:26 PM on March 9, 2006


yes, yes. the best response to members pissing in the well is always for a moderator to take a big dump in it.

I hate to break it to you, quonsar, but that's not a well.
posted by gigawhat? at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2006


With regard to q's beef: In the spirit of being understanding and conciliatory, I'll mention that I have never understood why people get so upset about comment deletions and the like—but it's one of those things that I am willing to accept that other people have heartfelt and strong feelings about. It really does offend a certain kind of sensibility. That doesn't tell us whether the offender or the offended is wrong; but it should urge us to take the offended's complaints seriously.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:36 PM on March 9, 2006


Didja hear the one 'bout the three holes in th' ground? Well, well, well.
posted by not everyone at 3:37 PM on March 9, 2006


Metafilter: That's no well!
posted by darukaru at 3:43 PM on March 9, 2006


Any actions to placate people who either hate/loathe or like him are desperate.

Sorry? So any comment that is in any way a moderate statement about dios is desperate?
posted by cortex at 3:44 PM on March 9, 2006


also, happy birthday jessaMom
posted by cortex at 3:45 PM on March 9, 2006


People really have some mistaken impression that their perceived judgment of the quality of a post determines whether the responses in it matter or not

And other people have the mistaken impression violations of The Rules only matter when the poster is from The Other Side.
posted by yerfatma at 3:58 PM on March 9, 2006


Who says dios is from the other side?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:59 PM on March 9, 2006


I was wondering where this thread was...

Stop shitting in posts because you don't like them or don't think they're worthy--it's always the wrong thing to do. Take it here or flag it and move on.

I know there are people who will vehemently disagree with me on this (which is fine. I can deal,) but I think some in-thread criticism of posts is part of the whole self-policing thing, if only because if everyone did "take it to MetaTalk" there'd be people bitching about all the MetaTalk threads, too.

And while it looks like it has been deleted, there was one comment where someone threw out a previous comment by dios regarding pedophiles and purple shirts that I thought was far more poisonous than the thread or dios' comment. An irrelevant shot at someone you don't like. Yeah, that's gonna help.
posted by Cyrano at 4:04 PM on March 9, 2006


Cock this. I'll never, ever understand why dios draws so much bile.


posted by jack_mo at 4:22 PM on March 9, 2006


Dios for Hall Monitor.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:56 PM on March 9, 2006


I once made a post that got deleted for "editorialising." Before it's deletion, alot of people in the thread accused me of editorialising in my post and of being a troll. While I took exception to being called a troll, I accepted the claim of editorialising and moved on.

I was accused of editorialising because I asked questions for discussion related to the topic that I had posted a link to; an earthquake in Indonesia. The questions did, admitedly, criticise the US for its slow delay in responding to the Boxing Day tsunamis, and I asked if this was a chance for the US to build some good will in one of the most populous Muslim countries in the world after that slow delay. The usual suspects, such as Paris Parasmus and others, were the loudest critics of this particular post.

Here's why I did it. Not because I had an axe to grind (not specifically, anyway) but because this is what it says in MeFi's good post guidlines.

"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

Note how it says "Might warrant discussion from others." That's why I added the questions to my post; to promote discussion from others. But it got called editorialising. I got called "the worst kind of troll", neither of which was my aim. But if Matt and/or jessamyn decided that that was in fact what it was, then I accept that (though I still reject the claim of trolling).

In this case, digaman seems to have been doing much the same. He asked questions relating to the topic which, in turn, have been criticised as editorialising and axe-grinding.

I have no opinion on whether or not this is what it is. I'll leave that up to the mods. However, I do ask why is it wrong, if we are to post topics on MeFi that will "promote discussion from others", for the original poster to start the disucssion with their own views? Is it just because its on the front page? If they added a [more inside] tag and then, in the very first comment, 'editorialised', would that be better, or just as wrong?

If it is the latter, perhaps clarification is needed on the 'What Makes A Good Post' page as to what constitues 'discussion' and what constitues editorialising. Because it seems to me that editorialising is just another way of framing the discussion to come.

Just my 2c.
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:11 PM on March 9, 2006


"...and it might warrant discussion from others"

I think it's clear from how those guidelines are phrased, and clear from the many discussions on this matter, that discussion is neither a necessary nor sufficient aspect of a post. In contrast, a link is both those things.

When you initiate the discussion in the post itself, you've elevated the discussion to an end unto itself. But it's not.

A lot of people here see posts as a) an opportunity to proselytize or lecture; and/or b) an excuse for having a discussion. I strongly believe that posts should not be the means to those ends if for no other reason than that those lower the bar so low that anything at all becomes postable, including someone's random thoughts. That's not what MeFi is for. In contrast, a is a nearly unavoidable evil that can be discouraged but never eliminated, while b is (usually) an unnecessary but welcome benefit that comes from good FPPs. This is why it's important to object to a, and to object to b as the raison d'etre of posting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:45 PM on March 9, 2006


Effigy2000, as Ethereal Bligh (and others in the past) said, "it's been agreed that if one must editorialize, then one should do it in a following comment".

My personal opinion would be that the guidelines you quoted imply that a good post should warrant discussion from others without needing prompts and hints from the author. I have also heard (seen?) people say that the author is not expected to be a conspicious part of the following discussion anyway.
posted by jacalata at 5:51 PM on March 9, 2006


Cyrano: I posted that comment, because i think it fairly effectively sums up Dios' political affiliation. He's a strict de-ontologist with an odd legislative bent: If, through the due process of law, some act is legal, then it is ethical.

I find his position to be truly problematic, and reason to disregard his position on a number of subjects, particularly those relating to the morality of laws, the current administration, and military/governmental action.

He is welcome to his position, but his style of argumentation totally disregards morality outside of the legal realm, which is why he draws so much ire. He regularly refuses to say whether something is moral or not, while defending the act as either legal or, usually pseudo-legal. He also has a particularly irksome talent for ignoring refutations of his previous arguments, which tends to get on people's nerves, particularly when discussing torture or warrant-less wiretaps.

And, oddly enough, he jumps into threads about the subjects he often defends and attempts to derail them. Either by the means utilized in the present example or by complaining here in metatalk, as many others have linked to in this thread.

He behaved similarly to other right-wing trolls (though he himself may not be precisely right wing: I doubt very many republicans would agree with his political/moral theories) such as Witty, Shane, ParisParamus, and the infamous Dhoyt clones, in that he complains about liberal content in FPP's, yet rarely posts threads himself. After having been called out about that, he has since begun to post more FPP's though they tend to mostly in depth analysis of fairly obscure legal issues, which, frankly, I think are quite interesting. Between disparaging posts he disapproves of and posting interesting legal links, I wish he would do more of the latter and less of the former.
posted by Freen at 5:53 PM on March 9, 2006


I admit my bad faith. I don't like Dios. I wish he was in some Iraqi prison right now, tasting the same crap he helps feed the rest of us. But until then, I'll feel content to rubbing his nose in every puddle he makes on the floor.

You, sir, have won the internet. There's really nothing more for you to do here.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:06 PM on March 9, 2006


the best response to members pissing in the well is always for a moderator to take a big dump in it.

The best response to having a much-requested flagging option is for it to actually do something and not just be some sort of "close elevator" button that people keep pressing and wondering if it's attached to anything.

Bringing something into MetaChat pretty much automatically means things will get flagged to hell.

"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

And on the discussion/guidelines thing, it's been pretty well established here that FPPs with some variant of "XYZ sucks donkey balls, who's with me!?" don't last long. There is a big difference between asking a general question and the sort of "Am I RITE?!" stuff that gets attention as axe-grinding. The post mentioned in this thread originally is still there, as is ortho's sort of weird post, neither of which attracted a lot of flagging attention. The posting guidelines are three joined items, meaning a good post should do all three of those things, not just one or another. Often these posts are weak newsy links and all the content is in the "I think this sucks" aspect of the post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:08 PM on March 9, 2006


Bringing something into MetaChat pretty much automatically means things will get flagged to hell.

MetaChat?
posted by Balisong at 6:11 PM on March 9, 2006


Effigy2000 writes "Note how it says 'Might warrant discussion from others.' That's why I added the questions to my post; to promote discussion from others."

But it doesn't say that you should foist your opinion on the congregation or that you should play the devil's advocate or that you should wrap it up in sarcasm or that you should add a rhetorical or leading question or a snark about the content or any other editorial input aside from simply presenting the hopefully cool links in a reasonable manner.

'might warrant discussion' is not a directive to action. It is simply the 3rd and arguably least important of those 3 criteria by which to judge whether or not to make a post. The material will foster the discussion, if it's going to occur.
posted by peacay at 6:15 PM on March 9, 2006


Sorry. Bringing something into MetaChat means that nice people might actually ask you how your day was going. Bringing it to MetaTalk activates the heavy flagging.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:20 PM on March 9, 2006


So, how was your day?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2006


For the millionth time, the best solution is a new section of the site for posting and discussing news and politics.
posted by LarryC at 6:23 PM on March 9, 2006


As an explanation of my comment above; Torture is my Achilles heel. It's my "go off" button.
It's the one thing that eclipses all the other wrongs done by this administration (in my opinion), and I work myself up into a frothing lather of rage whenever I hear anyone try to justify it.
I think that anyone who thinks it is justified should be subjected to it themselves. I think that if you are pro-war, you should be out there fighting. I think that if you are pro-torture, you should be subjected to it for a good 4 months-4 years. If you think that it's OK to bomb civilians, I hope someone you love is innocently killed by a stray bomb. It's a zen-karma thing. If you still feel the same way after you have gone through that, fine, but it shouldn't be national policy.
Feel free to flame away on me for my position. I don't care.
posted by Balisong at 6:43 PM on March 9, 2006


monju,

dios knows exactly what he is doing when he makes such comments. He knows that the comment will piss off a lot of people and he knows that no interesting discussion will take place because everybody will drop everything to argue with him. He did this exact same thing a couple weeks ago where, in a really amazing display, he accused bardic of having an Anti-American bias in his Olympics thread. I'm sure I could go back and find plenty of other examples. This is standard operating procedure for dios:

(1) hit the thread early with a comment that (a) attacks the poster (b) attacks the post (c) attacks all of Mefi
(2) feed the derail by making every single comment in the thread about his attack instead of taking to Meta or email
(3) sit back, enjoy derail the entire thread
(4) Profit?

dios is clearly troll. Your "other people do it too" defense of his behavior is pretty dumb. Other people aren't dios, don't do this regularly, and don't produce total derails when they do, do this.

Anyways, I'll just point this out again for the umpteenth. Absolutely othing will be done to address this issue but c'est la vie.
posted by nixerman at 6:51 PM on March 9, 2006


I find his position to be truly problematic, and reason to disregard his position on a number of subjects, particularly those relating to the morality of laws, the current administration, and military/governmental action.

And I don't really disagree with you in that regard. I have just as many problems with dios' hardline legalistic positions as I have with some other members who seem to want to show how much compassion they have for everyone. The law isn't always right. But on the other hand, sometimes there are some people who just suck. And in between is the gray area most of us live in.

However, it seems to me that most times dios couldn't derail a thread if there weren't people equally eager to rip up the tracks themselves by getting all worked up every time they see his username.

I totally respect your disagreements with dios (or myself.) But that's where I was coming from with my comment.

But thank you for the reasonable response.
posted by Cyrano at 6:56 PM on March 9, 2006


What is the problem? It was topical, it's about something we all care a lot about - hell, I believe even some Christians care about it - and it was a fairly well constructed post.

Oh - didn't you like the angle? Tough shit; ask God to forgive him you hypersensitive nonce.
posted by Decani at 7:09 PM on March 9, 2006


Oh wait - you were having a go at dios's reply? My bad. But you're still a hypersensitive nonce. Come on, dios is a joke, but like most jokes he's a laugh.

Why do you take this shit so seriously? Why? Why can't you just let shitty posts go if you don't like them? No, ask yourself: what is this need to go grandstanding and making an issue on MetaTalk all about? What does it say about you that you feel driven to do that? This is just a fucking website/message board, dude. It doesn't matter a tinker's cuss what gets posted here. If you don't like something either slag the poster off on the thread in question or ignore it. Why be so anal? Why draw further attention to it? Why go "OOH SIR! OOH SIR! I DON'T LIKE THIS POST! I THINK THIS POST VIOLATES THE BROADLY ACCEPTED CONVENTIONS OF THE SITE! OOH SIR! OOH SIR! DO I GET A GOLD STAR, SIR? DO I GET A DICKIE-BACK RIDE? OOH SIR!"

God, some of you people. Incredible. Get a life.
posted by Decani at 7:15 PM on March 9, 2006


What does it say about you that you feel driven to do that?

Dude, you just made two MetaTalk posts in a row.
posted by Cyrano at 7:22 PM on March 9, 2006


Oh the irony, decani. It runs thick.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:30 PM on March 9, 2006


quonsar, what's with the hate on jessamyn campaign?

peacay, i strongly dislike disappearing comments, especially when they are referenced and linked to and then cannot be found. i have strongly disliked it since before you could spell metafilter. i disliked it before jessamyn got her first library card. i'm entitled to express my opinion so take your asinine, lame attempt to portray it as "hating on jessamyn" and blow it out your ass. thank you!
posted by quonsar at 7:36 PM on March 9, 2006


MetaTalk: Blow it. Thank you!
posted by loquacious at 7:51 PM on March 9, 2006


there was one comment where someone threw out a previous comment by dios regarding pedophiles and purple shirts

Huh?
posted by homunculus at 7:58 PM on March 9, 2006


yes, yes. the best response to members pissing in the well is always for a moderator to take a big dump in it.

Depersonalize. Criticize. Repeat.

Just spiteful interjections expressions of opinion.
posted by peacay at 8:01 PM on March 9, 2006


some in-thread criticism of posts is part of the whole self-policing thing

Absolutely.
posted by mediareport at 8:37 PM on March 9, 2006


god bless quonsar. he takes "bitter, cranky asshole" to a whole new level to make the rest of us almost seem normal in comparison. he does a service for the site that no mere librarian can hope to accomplish.
posted by crunchland at 8:43 PM on March 9, 2006


But until then, I'll feel content to rubbing his nose in every puddle he makes on the floor.

I hope you're wearing hipwaders, buckaroo...

Feel free to flame away on me for my position. I don't care.

If you don't give a shit, this call out is completely worthless and a total waste of everyone's time. Good job.
Seriously though, thanks. Now I and a lot of other people know exactly how much respect we should afford anything you say here.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:44 PM on March 9, 2006


Now I and a lot of other people know exactly how much respect we should afford anything you say here.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:44 PM


Who are you, again?
posted by Balisong at 8:51 PM on March 9, 2006


Member #29872.
If you pulled your head out of your ass and moused over my name, you'd have seen that.


/Mouses over Balisong's name, reads Member Number, starts laughing.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:57 PM on March 9, 2006


some in-thread criticism of posts is part of the whole self-policing thing

Is there a difference between in-thread criticism and deliberate derails? Are the continual attacks ok even though they prevent any interesting discussion at all? This might be considered "in-thread criticism" if the same exact thing hadn't happened dozens of times before.

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease. If people are going to keep shitting in threads, fine. mathowie doesn't seem to care all that much. But please drop the whole "it's for your own good" line. It's stupid.
posted by nixerman at 8:59 PM on March 9, 2006


??? easily amused?
posted by Balisong at 9:01 PM on March 9, 2006


Sorry man, but if your closer to me than to Mathowie on the list, the STFU, n00b! shtick is pretty damn toothless.
Hilarious, but toothless.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:02 PM on March 9, 2006


Here, homunculus is making blatantly obvious what it is that quonsar is so pissed off about:

In the thread in question I quoted and posted a link to this choice tidbit by dios.

Cyrano mentioned it, and I responded, but the origin, and purpose of our exchange is lost to the sands of time because the initial comment was deleted.

In retrospect, it was a pretty shitty comment, and I understand why it was deleted, but such editorial activity can occasionally make the narrative a bit difficult to follow. Which, some would argue is just as disruptive if not more to the signal to noise ratio as the noisy comment itself.
posted by Freen at 9:02 PM on March 9, 2006


You know, Alvy, this is the first time I've ever noticed your name, anywhere. That's why I asked who you were (and implied, 'why should I care"). but I can see you are a heavy contributor, so I'll bow to your snark with humility.
posted by Balisong at 9:10 PM on March 9, 2006


here's a hypothetical:

let's say you were a vocal member of the community whose views were unpopular. let's say that you tended to respond acerbically to differences of opinion and that you developed a reputation because of this. let's say you're just an argumentative person.

now let's imagine that you really DO want to contribute to the community without sacrificing your beliefs to do so, but that a lot of people have already decided that you're never going to change and that everything you say is an attempt to troll.

how would you go about fixing this situation? (me? I'd get a new account, but let's assume that there's some reason not to, since dios hasn't.) honestly, I can't imagine what it would be like for me if I knew that every time I opened my mouth about ANYTHING someone would jump on me for it. Even if I thought I deserved it for PAST behavior, if I were trying to rectify my ways and be less flame-worthy I'd have no idea how go about participating around here anymore without derailing every thread I joined, just because my mere presence derails threads.

this seems to me to be the situation dios is in. even if he says something that leans on the liberal side of things (or, for that matter, leans towards the accretion of federal power over the states) then someone jumps in to say "dios said that?! is he joking or baiting us?" and then it's all over. I honestly can't think of a single time that someone has called out dios, either in a mefi thread or in meta, since the rothko dios time-out contest that has been valid. it's at the point now where he honestly can't say anything because SOMEONE will get offended, no matter what he says, because he's dios. maybe once upon a time he earned this reputation, but he hasn't lived up to it in some time.

should he just disappear? is that how we want to think of ourselves? do we piss on people we disagree with until they leave? for my part, that's not the community I thought I was joining when I ponied up my finsky.
posted by shmegegge at 9:22 PM on March 9, 2006


If dios changes his name, the AntiDiosticians win.

(In the unlikely event he went into the MeFite Protection Program, his style and opinions would probably out him quickly - and his foes would make it their business to ferret him out, too. Instead of Dios=Evil! callouts clogging the MeTa terlit, there'd be I Think Innocuous n00b #43892 Is Dois, & Therefore=Evil! posts.)

And bali: are you being serious now or is that snark too. Meh, either way, I don't care ;)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:34 PM on March 9, 2006


Find all the completely intentional spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors in that post, and win a stuffed Sponge Bob!
Sheesh, if there's ever a sign that it's time to go to bed.
Wake me up when someone wins this... thing, whatever the hell this is.

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:50 PM on March 9, 2006


"there was one comment where someone threw out a previous comment by dios regarding pedophiles and purple shirts"

Huh?
posted by homunculus at 7:58 PM PST on March 9


I'm just going to go ahead and post it because I love it so goddamn much:

I have already said I several times on this site that I am a libertarian authoritarian. That is, I don't care where democratic majorities set the line, but wherever it is, you better damn well follow it. For all I care, a democratic majority could authorize public pedophilia sex while smoking crack in public squares as long as one doesn't wear a purple shirt (and if one does, its a life sentence). And I wouldn't have a problem with the person smoking crack and nailing a 5 year old in public, but if that fucker wears that purple shirt, his ass needs to go to the clink for life.
posted by dios at 12:56 PM PST on December 22


It's the most bizarre, irrational, twisted set of ethics a single human being can have and yet, there it is.

It should be required reading for every person who calls him "interesting" or "intelligent." Oh, he could be both of those things, but not in a good way. Theodore Kaczynski was a pretty interesting guy himself, and smart as hell. That doesn't excuse his, or dios's, basic inhumanity.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:30 PM on March 9, 2006


Is there a difference between in-thread criticism and deliberate derails?

That's a great question. I'll be first to admit I don't always live up to this, but I think tone and contributing something positive to a thread before offering "in-thread criticism of a post" is probably what makes up the difference you mention.

Oh, and Balisong, you really need to apologize or give up on this one. languagehat, y6y6y6 and Falconetti, among others, pointed it out nicely: you *did* reveal a lot about yourself with this total bullshit callout, and what you revealed wasn't attractive. Instead of an apology, we get only, "Feel free to flame away on me for my position. I don't care."

How nice.
posted by mediareport at 10:31 PM on March 9, 2006


Apologise? Why? Becase you say so? What did I reveal about myself? That I think that people should be subjected to what they spew? That's what I believe.

I'm against (this) war. I'm not a soldier. I'm also not a pacifist. I was in the Air Force, and am now out. I served my time.
I'm against torture. I've been through several "abusive hazing" situations, and know that it is nothing we should do as a national policy.

What do you want?
posted by Balisong at 10:53 PM on March 9, 2006


.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:56 PM on March 9, 2006


Apologise? Why?

Um, you acted in bad faith. "Sorry about that, won't happen again" seems the very least you can do.

What do you want?

Um, you to stop acting in bad faith.
posted by mediareport at 10:59 PM on March 9, 2006



Please fuck off. Please? Just go away. Don't come back. Please? If I give you a dollar?
Balisong - Please get over yourself, or fuck off.
posted by y6y6y6


Nicely?
posted by Balisong at 10:59 PM on March 9, 2006


Well, y6y6y6 started off nicer than that. Besides, I meant "accurately." Nice as in, "on target."
posted by mediareport at 11:02 PM on March 9, 2006


Because I'm NOT sorry.
I DO believe that Dios should spend a week or five in a stress position. I DO believe that Paris should put on a uniform and live his words.

Maybe you give in or change your positions just because of peer pressure, but some don't.
I'm not all peace and love, but I'm also not for bombing the shit out of other countries.

Dios and Paris ARE.
posted by Balisong at 11:03 PM on March 9, 2006


There'd be no point to a thing like this if people like Dios didn't exist, to stir up the shit and allow people the opportunity to get a proper froth on and feel all superior. You can only hold hands and hum Kumbaya for so long. People don't come for discussion, discovery, discourse, agreement. They come for conflict and outrage. It's a rotten motivation but then, the obsessive generation of text is a pretty rotten pastime. Dios gives and gives and gives and almost nobody appreciates it.
posted by nanojath at 11:04 PM on March 9, 2006


I'm not all peace and love, but I'm also not for bombing the shit out of other countries.

Ok, now you're completely avoiding the point. You said you posted a MeTa thread in bad faith, Bali. That's peeing on the entire community, not just the members you hate, and *that's* where the apology comes in. You know, to the rest of us. But whatever; you refuse to take that step, fine. That's revealing, too.
posted by mediareport at 11:14 PM on March 9, 2006


Oh.. then I mistook what "acting in bad faith" meant.

google definition.

OK, It was not in bad faith. I did not mean to deceive.
I really think this way, and **I'm Sorry** that I led people to believe that I really like Dios.
posted by Balisong at 11:18 PM on March 9, 2006


Is that better?
posted by Balisong at 11:20 PM on March 9, 2006


No. "I don't like dios" is still a totally shitty reason for a MeTa post. Someone said it before: Grow up.
posted by mediareport at 11:29 PM on March 9, 2006


That's not the reason for this MeTa post.
I'm pretty sure that someone else would have done it if it wasn't me.
But I won't start another MeTa about Dios.
I'm sure it'll happen again, but I won't be the one.
posted by Balisong at 11:41 PM on March 9, 2006


Oh, wait.. I could make that a haiku..

Dios shits on the thread,
Metatalk becomes unruly,
Balisong eats crow.
posted by Balisong at 11:51 PM on March 9, 2006


The community had to be destroyed in order to save it, Bali.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:58 PM on March 9, 2006


"It's the most bizarre, irrational, twisted set of ethics a single human being can have and yet, there it is."

I'll go with "bizarre" but not with "irrational" or "twisted". Also, one thing it most certainly is not, is culturally conservative. That's because as a moral philosophy, it's entirely and purely relativistic.

The thing is, a whole lot of people today will disdain the idea of there being any sort of universal standard upon which to judge the morality of an action. So dios isn't out in left-field with that part of it.

And if you take a strong morally relativistic stance, then either you will disdain any supposed moral standard in any situation by anyone (except perhaps yourself); or you'll look around for a reasonable "local" standard.

The rule of law is a much better standard than, say, Kass's "gut instinct" test. It's a better standard than convention. Dios implies the rule of law in the context of a democracy, and so that, I would think, makes it more reasonable.

In a world where people point to some ancient mystical book as where all morality is defined, I'd think the rule of law would look downright brilliant.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:01 AM on March 10, 2006


I really, really want the admins to stop cracking down on political threads. I get my political news here instead of dKos for a reason, and that reason is that I'll get better commentary, better argument, broader opinion, and more humour. I'm BEGGING you guys, find a way to communicate to us what political posts are acceptable and what aren't. I don't want this site to turn into another hipster/geek/art-only site. The political content is essential to the life of the site.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:25 AM on March 10, 2006


I'm BEGGING you guys, find a way to communicate to us what political posts are acceptable and what aren't.

BtGoG, we've discussed this ad nauseum in chat and in MetaTalk, and I'm sorry you don't like the answer I've given you but I have tried to explain this repeatedly. It's been gone over in MetaTalk pretty much since there was a MetaTalk.

Almost all political posts stay. Ones that are one-link newsfilter posts with overtly drum-banging, chest-beating, axe-grinding hyperbole- and rhetoric-filled commentary do not. There are many other sites that fulfill the "OMG the other side SUXKS!!!" discussion requirements. MetaFilter is at its worst when someone is using it as their own soapbox to forward their own agenda - especially if it's one that's been brought here time and time again with predictable results - as opposed to sharing interesting things they found with the community.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:32 AM on March 10, 2006


Dios hollas 'ho-bah' and the cows come a-mooin'.
Congratulations, #17809, on yet another thread (almost) all about you!!!
My hero...
posted by mischief at 3:54 AM on March 10, 2006


I don't agree with something one of you just said - therefore you are a troll.

Wow. Aren't we all grown up?
posted by longbaugh at 4:00 AM on March 10, 2006


In a world where people point to some ancient mystical book as where all morality is defined, I'd think the rule of law would look downright brilliant.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:01 AM PST on March 10


So what you're saying is that his ethical system is better than "fuck it, go by the rules we made up 2,000 years ago." That's not going to fly. His system is exactly like that system: a rule is sent down from on high and must be obeyed at all costs. That's bullshit: it absolves us of all judgment and critical thinking.

To everyone attacking Balisong: lay off. You guys get off on nothing like "this is a dumb callout," "that was a mean comment," "oh lordy you said he should be tortured." Who gives a fuck? We talk about dios because he wants us to. He needs us to. In a place like FreeRepublic he'd just be another lunatic with a hard-on for daddy's authority; here, he's the brilliant contrarian, because apparently you rubes have never so much as spoken to a conservative with a brain or a conscience. Real conservatives don't say shit like "For all I care, a democratic majority could authorize public pedophilia sex while smoking crack in public squares as long as one doesn't wear a purple shirt (and if one does, its a life sentence)." You know why? Because that's what crazy people think. And we probably shouldn't torture crazy proponents of torture, but we sure as shit shouldn't listen to them.

Remember when jon_kill derailed the space exploration/water on Enceladus thread? Remember how he got shit for it? Well, here's a tip, jon. Keep it up. Do it every day for a couple years and you won't be called shrill or annoying; you'll be as hailed tough but fair, interesting, intelligent, a good contributor, no matter what it is you actually say.

Why? Because - watch this rhetorical trick I picked up from dios to really get them riled up - you are all huge fucking suckers.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:58 AM on March 10, 2006


As opposed to huge sucking fuckers.
posted by mischief at 6:29 AM on March 10, 2006


you are all huge fucking suckers

Is that so, Optimus Prime? "Fucking suckers", eh?

Personally, I really don't think that you're going far enough! Quite a number of people here never seem to wash behind their ears - it would be more accurate to refer to them as "mucky fucking suckers".

Furthermore, almost all of the aforementioned group are from Kentucky, the "Bluegrass State". So shouldn't you really call them, "Mucky fucking suckers from Kentucky"-?

But I should also make clear that Kentucky is a fabulous place to live - if you're fortunate enough to be a resident, or a "lucky mucky fucking sucker from Kentucky", as I call them.

But again, isn't it well known that such persons are quite partial to ordering Chinese take-out from Mr Wong's Wholesale Deliveries, and are particularly keen on Hoi Sin Duck? "Such persons" being, of course, the lucky mucky fucking suckers from Kentucky with a plucky ducky coming in a trucky.

And, if the papers are to be believed, just last night Mr Wong's delivery vehicle - driven by Hu Wong, his first son and a big fan of Bohemian-German composers - hit a male deer on the road at some speed, and reduced the poor beast to a heap of bone and gristle. I think, therefore, that you are really talking about the "lucky mucky fucking suckers from Kentucky with a plucky ducky coming in a trucky driven by a shmuck that struck a buck to the strains of Gluck and made it yucky".

So just getting fucking right next time.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:30 AM on March 10, 2006


And lo, thusly do I make my first "fantastic comment" flag in the Grey.
posted by Gator at 6:32 AM on March 10, 2006


MetaFilter: lucky mucky fucking suckers from Kentucky with a plucky ducky coming in a trucky driven by a shmuck that struck a buck to the strains of Gluck and made it yucky
posted by mischief at 6:41 AM on March 10, 2006


Oh, horsepuckey.
posted by languagehat at 6:46 AM on March 10, 2006


Jess: Almost all political posts stay . . . MetaFilter is at its worst when someone is using it as their own soapbox to forward their own agenda - especially if it's one that's been brought here time and time again . . .

Good Lord, so which is it?

Sorry for the snark, Jess, and thanks for all you do. But there really are no clear guidelines for the political posts. A smarmy sophomoric single-link BushSucksFilter post will somtimes get the axe (unless an "interesting conversation" developed before the mods caught it). But as someone noted a few days ago, if you take the same post and throw in a Wikipedia link, it gets to stay.

The answer is a new section of the site for news ad politics. Or a new section for best of the web. Really, the only objection to this is from the agenda-driven posters, who want as many eyeballs as possible seeing their self-righteous displays.
posted by LarryC at 6:47 AM on March 10, 2006


"the only objection to this [news and politics section] is from the agenda-driven posters"

... and Matt himself.
posted by mischief at 6:50 AM on March 10, 2006


If you don't like it, skip it.
posted by bardic at 7:19 AM on March 10, 2006


if you take the same post and throw in a Wikipedia link, it gets to stay.

Mischief noted that. I don't think that's a supportable statement, actually, that axe-grinding posts with an extra Wikipedia link tossed in to diddle the mods makes any difference. There is a huge difference between most posts that are about politics and posts that are actually politicking in and of themselves, most of the time. Posts about politics are usually fine, go unflagged and people discuss them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:57 AM on March 10, 2006


We talk about dios because he wants us to.

What if dios threw a troll and nobody came?
posted by Cyrano at 8:44 AM on March 10, 2006


Think of the shantytowns we could build with all the spare soapboxes around here.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:48 AM on March 10, 2006


MetaFilter: an extra Wikipedia link tossed in to diddle the mods
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:49 AM on March 10, 2006


Metafilter: a bunch of intolerant cunts that depress me every time i return to this shithole.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:51 AM on March 10, 2006


F-A-C
E-T-I
O-U-S hee hee
posted by mischief at 8:52 AM on March 10, 2006


Metafilter: a bunch of intolerant cunts that depress me every time i return to this shithole.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:51 AM PST on March 10


Moleskine.

XD
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:54 AM on March 10, 2006


« writes "Really, the only objection to this is from the agenda-driven posters, who want as many eyeballs as possible seeing their self-righteous displays."

this is flatly untrue. I, and others who don't make political posts, have vehemently expressed my opposition to this idea in MeTa threads where that was the topic, amazingly enough, and not the derail.

you can go look for those threads if you'd like to see what the discussion actually looked like. you know, instead of just assuming.
posted by shmegegge at 9:05 AM on March 10, 2006


every time i return to this shithole

i have a solution for you if you're interested...
posted by Hat Maui at 10:17 AM on March 10, 2006


It's great how, about five comments into this MeTa thread, everyone forgot about how dios derailed the FPP in the blue and this whole discussion turned into yet another "why are we being mean to poor dios" thread.

So much gets done here! It's truly amazing!
posted by wakko at 11:21 AM on March 10, 2006


Metafilter: a bunch of intolerant cunts that depress me every time i return to this shithole.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:51 AM EST on March 10 [!]


Next time you return, try posting a question to AskMe along the lines of how you might not return to a shithole. I'm sure you'll get some helpful solutions. Though that might make you want to return again.
posted by juiceCake at 12:30 PM on March 10, 2006


It's great how, about five comments into this MeTa thread, everyone forgot about how dios derailed the FPP in the blue and this whole discussion turned into yet another "why are we being mean to poor dios" thread.

So much gets done here! It's truly amazing!


Even if dios is really trolling (I don't think he is), all you would have to do to keep him from derailing the FPP is to ignore him.

But no one ever does it! It's truly amazing!
posted by justgary at 2:05 PM on March 10, 2006


Well it's alright now, I've learned my lesson well.
You can't please everyone, so you
got to please yourself.
posted by Balisong at 2:23 PM on March 10, 2006


You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself.

Again, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
posted by yerfatma at 6:35 PM on March 10, 2006


You know what derails are good for?

Parking your car on them.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:02 PM on March 10, 2006


I doubt very many republicans would agree with his political/moral theories) such as Witty, Shane, ParisParamus, and the infamous Dhoyt clones, in that he complains about liberal content in FPP's, yet rarely posts threads himself.

For the record... that is a pretty dramatic oversimplification of what some of us "complain" about. In fact, on second thought, it's plain wrong. Furthermore, no one is required to make an FPP in order to participate in this forum... and certainly not as a means of balancing the available political content.
posted by Witty at 5:45 AM on March 13, 2006


« Older Why are people so "end th...  |  Space exploration topics in ju... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments